April 12 (25)-April 27 (May 10), 1905

6

Speech on the Question of the Armed Uprising

April 16 (29)

Duringthe debate the question was put on a practical plane: what is the mood of
the masses? Comrade Leskov[1]
was right in saying that it was
chequered. But Comrade Zharkov is right, too, in saying that we must reckon with
the fact that the uprising, whatever we may think of it, is bound to take
place. The question arises whether there are any differences in principle
between the resolutions submitted. I fail totally to see any. Although I am
viewed as an arch-intransigent, I will, nevertheless, try to reconcile and bring
these two resolutions into line—I will undertake their reconciliation. I
have nothing against the amendment to Comrade Voinov’s resolution. Nor do I see
any difference in principle in the addendum. Very energetic participation does
not necessarily imply hegemony. I think Comrade Mikhailov expressed himself in
a more positive manner; he emphasises hegemony, and in a concrete form, too. The
English proletariat is destined to bring about a socialist revolution—that
is beyond doubt; but its inability to bring it about at the present moment,
owing to its lack of socialist organisation and its corruption by the
bourgeoisie, is equally beyond dispute. Comrade Voinov expresses the same
thought: the most energetic participation is undoubtedly the most decisive
participation. Whether the proletariat will decide the outcome of the
revolution—no one can assert absolutely. This is likewise true of the role
of leader. Comrade Voinov’s resolution is worded more carefully. Social
Democracy may organise the uprising, it may even be the deciding factor in
it. But whether Social-Democracy will
have the leading role in it cannot be predetermined; that will depend on the
strength and organisation of the proletariat. The petty bourgeoisie may
be better organised and its diplomats may prove to be superior and better
trained. Comrade Voinov is the more cautious; he says, “You may be
able to do it.” “You will do it,” says Comrade Mikhailov. The
proletariat may possibly decide the outcome of the revolution, but this
cannot be asserted positively. Comrades Mikhailov and Sosnovsky are guilty
of the very error they charge Comrade Voinov with: “Count not your
trophies before the battle.”

“Forguarantee, it is necessary,” says Voinov; “necessary and
sufficient,” say Mikhailov and Sosnovsky. As to organising special fighting
groups, I might say that I consider them necessary. We need not fear to form
them.